Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Nope. I live in a rural area(city of ~30k rural pop ~120k), and my local hospital has had zero issues or outbreaks of MRSA. Though the nearby cities of London and Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge here in Ontario, have all had problems of MRSA. If you don't want to get it, you need to go to a hospital that has good microbiological controls in place.

Y'know, evolution being the path by which this happened, and americans being unable to blame it because that would aknowledge its existence

I suspect the dominant social factor is the fact that the USA lacks the will (or spine) to impose badly needed regulations if they would cut into someone's profits. Especially if that 'someone' is a whole industry.

Sad, because the EU may had imposed the ban for nothing: unless they also impose a quarantine against anything/anyone coming from outside, the drug-resistant staph will get into EU (directly from US or via other routes).

You seem to be missing the point. Randomly giving animals (or people, but that's harder to control) antibiotics without them needed said antibiotics will eventually create antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Your point is a typical "We can't fix everything, so let's fix nothing!" attitude I've seen applied way too often on this website.

Also, these antibiotics aren't banned. Uncontrolled administration of any antibiotic for non-medical reasons is. What would you suggest we do? Stop using antibiotics and hope not to die because of something that could've been easily treated with antibiotics but wasn't due to a fear that some bacteria will develop a resistance against it?

It's not a matter of eliminating the problem, it's a matter of controlling it, limiting it to situations where the probabiility of some mutant strain appearing is acceptable compared to death.

Who says we are applying them randomly to livestock? Antibiotics cost money and animal producers have to deal with a boom bust cycle of profitabilitlity that means unnecessary expenses must be cut whenever possible. They are VERY deliberate in their decisions regarding any feed ingredient becuase feed accounts for 60 to 80% of the cost of bringing their prouduct to market. A 5% savings in total feed costs could spell the difference between losing money and making money.

And minor illnesses reduce the accelerated growth that intensive animal farming is trying to do. Which loses money. Applying selectively takes time and effort and that costs money. Mindlessly mass-vaccinating is simple.

Many farms, in my addmitedly anecdotal experience "most", only use antibiotics in a targeted way becuase of the cost associated with their use. Swine farms routinely administer them via feed or water to nursery pigs, but outside of the first month post-weaning, using is dramatically curtailed. Piglets in first couple of weeks post-weaning are very prone to clinical disease outbreaks (which require much higher antibiotic doses to treat), higher mor

Also, at the risk of sounding callous we need to keep in mind that most resistant infections are not fatal.

Up to a 50% mortality rate in hospitals.You're sounding very callous right now.

No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they had MRSA present. As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA, becuase MRSA is not immune to antibodies, macrophages, or any other part of the acue phase response.

Are you shitting me? This is not a good thing.'No one said that these farmers with MRSA were dying. Only that they are walking reservoirs of drug resistant bacteria.''As long as their immune system is not dramatically compromized they are capable of fighting off MRSA and spreading the disease'

But it's not like MRSA is Ebola.

I wish MRSA was more like Ebola, I.E. limited to Africa and parts of Asia.MRSA has an average m

Exactly! In hospitals, populated primarily by the immuno compromized such as the elderly, cancer patients, patients recovering from invasive procedures like surgery. Focusing on hospital data only is a textbook example of sampling bias (literally, it was mention in my stats textbook in grad school).

Also, how many of them contracted MRSA from the hospital? Banning antibiotics in livestock will do nothing to curtail Hospital acquired MRSA infections.

Banning antibiotics in livestock isn't supposed to curtail MRSA infections short-term, it's supposed to allow the percentage of Staph which is MR to gradually fall back to acceptable levels. It's well established that when you stop selecting for drug-resistant bacteria, the population resistance falls relatively quickly - drug-resistance mutations typically compromise some functionality, so non-resistant strains can out-compete resistant ones.

Yet the United States continues to use at least 70 percent of its antibiotics on livestock, to shave pennies per pound from the price of pork chops or chicken

Meat producers have fed growth-promoting antibiotics to food animals for years.

Millions of pounds of antibiotics are routinely administered at low doses to large numbers of animals living in crowded conditions, not because they are sick, but to speed their growth and prevent possible infections

Your economic argument explains why they are doing it. It makes them money because the animals are fatter.

Yes, because a google search is the equivalent of a critical review, and not a popularity contest subject to clever tricks such as search engine optimizat at all.

I don't know where this Dr. Morris works within the FDA, but it is not within the center for veterinary medicine (CVM). The group responsible for regulating drugs in animal feed. The officials within CVM are prohibited by law from revoking the approval of a product without sufficient evidence of danger. Studies like the one above don't prove anything, they are all just correllation. And as we all know on/., Correlation is not proof of Causation!

I have several ideas for trial designs that might show stronger support, one way or the other, but instead of coming up with better designs they keep just repeating the same designs.

Idea #1: Find two demographically similar communities (preferably both having similar farm populations and production levels), one with a hospital and the other without and look at community MRSA rates. If I'm right, the town with the hospital will have much higher MRSA levels within the community if not, there will be no difference.

Idea #2: Similar approach, but without hospitals and with farms under opposing antibiotic use rules. In the US there are several university farms that have gone without antibiotics for decades, or a US community could be comparied to an EU community. If I'm wrong, then there would be higher MRSA rates in the community with higher drug use on swine farms. If I'm right there will be no difference.

I'm willing to conced the point if someone will show me something more rigorous than "We tested a bunch of people in a sub group without any control and found MRSA" because all people have some exposure to both potential sources of MRSA. As I said before, it is in my personal best interest for sub-theraputic antibiotics to be banned becuase I support a sales force that sells allternatives to antibiotics. I'd just like to see the science done right instead of having the decision based on crap correlations.

This experiment is already done on a much wider scale . - whit the EU and the US as experimental subjects, so to speak. One banning the use of antibiotics for growth enhancement, and one doesn't. A natural experiment, if you want. And there have been pages upon pages of written summaries, reports, studies, etc on the topic, and comparisons, and what not. There even is a transatlantic study group, TATFAR, and here is a visual summary detailing the EU efforts: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130516a.h [europa.eu]

I remember reading an article where they've never really traced a drug-resistant strain as having come from preventative antibiotic use, that the biggest source of resistant strains is people failing to take the full course of their antibiotics.

The theory espoused was that preventative doses of antibiotics, being below that of clinical treatment, are enough to 'disadvantage' targeted bacteria such that immune systems did most of the heavy lifting, preventing infections from taking hold. But at the same tim

You're worried about Salmonellosis? About 30 people die per year from salmonellosis vs about 20,000 from MRSA. If you're still more worried about Salmonella, you should appreciate banning of subtherapeutic antibiotics: anitbiotic resistant Salmonella is becoming increasingly common, including resistance to quinolones and even trimethoprim.

Actually, the average is 83 per year for the US from 1990 to 2006, but your point is a valid one. However, we still allow antibiotics in animal feed in the US so we don't know what the rate would be if we banned them, and Salmonella was only one example of a food borne pathogen currently controlled by antibiotics in feed. There are studies looking at carcass contamination with various microbes with and without antibiotic use in livestock and the data shows increased risk. Furthermore, I was trying to draw

Actually many of those denies will recognize it on a short term, or micro level, such as in this case; but somehow refuse to recognize it on a more macro level. Never heard them give the thought process behind this, other then sound bites.

Contrary to what you might wish to tell yourself, there are essentially no Americans who don't "acknowledge evolution's existence".

I challenge you to find one who will bat an eye at the statement that bacteria evolve. That would be the meaning of your statement, and your statement is erroneous.

What is true is that a number of Americans do not believe evolution is -exclusively- causally creditable for human existence. Not really the same issue though, since to claim this (or make further peculiarly-consi

Creationists maintain there is a difference between bacteria, fruit flies, and mice undergoing observable evolution and humans evolving. They call one "microevolution" and the other "macroevolution."

It's impossible to deny that evolution happens. You can watch it happen, bacteria on antibiotic plates. It is possible to claim that has nothing to do with how humans came to be, all it requires is extreme stupidity and insistence that a holy book is the best way to understand facts.

You have no understanding on bacteria, vaccination, or statistics. Please do not voice your uninformed opinion ever again.

That said, let me explain it to you: bacteria wants to live. Bacteria will evolve to survive in places where it is not welcome. The bacteria are simple organisms, and don't like to waste space in their DNA on stupid shit just for fun. The presence of vaccines in places that they want to live is usually a problem, but they adapt to it. If the vaccines were not there, there would be no evolutionary pressure to evade the vaccines. Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you.

You have no understanding on bacteria, vaccination, or statistics. Please do not voice your uninformed opinion ever again.

You have no understanding of science! Correlation in fact does not provide sufficient evidence for a causation hypothesis. It is not just a meme. For example, a differential hypothesis might be: industrial farm workers spending more time in the hospital (lets suppose that factory farms are more dangerous than organic ones) could easily explain a higher presence of drug resistant bacteria in the test population. Would it be simple to further demonstrate the hypothesis stating that the MRSA actually came

The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

Care to point me to one of these studies, because I've never been able to find them. Everything I've found has been very wishy-washy speculation which isn't ever able to connect the dots between animals and humans.

Second, drug-resistant bacteria do develop in animals given antibiotics for no real reason (other than the magical, inexplicable enhanced growth == profit margins). Bacteria can be easily transferred from animals to humans. The majority of them is harmless, probably. But, if something nasty does mutate and gains resistance to certain antibiotics, it getting transferred (it will, sooner or later) to humans may be a very big problem.

To make things worse, bacteria like to share genetic material, which helps (among other things) spread immunities to other bacteria.

It's not a matter of trying to connect the dots. It is possible. Which means it will probably happen, given enough occurrences.

Let's assume that you're right. Where do antibiotics go after they leave an organism? A good portion ends up in water supplies, so the antibiotics get further distributed, ending up in humans. Combine small doses of antibiotics with an infection and you have the perfect environment for the development of antibiotic resistance.

But again, let's assume that won't happen. What's the advantage of using antibiotics for no reason, other than somehow making animals grow faster? A larger profit margin for the owner, perhaps.

It boils down to the very likely possibility of some drug-resistant bacteria to show up versus someone's profit margin.

Well to be fair when you have a feed lot with 1000 head of cattle on it packed in nose to nose like sardines knee deep in their own filth there is a good reason to pump them full of antibiotics. The antibiotics don't make the animals grow faster but enable the conditions to fatten them up quicker. The steroids they give them also help them grow quicker and larger as well.

Cattle will have impressive weight gains when you feed them (heavily subsidized) corn. Until it starts to kill them, as their digestive system didn't evolve (there's that word again) to process an industrialized grain. But you can stave off that death for a while with heavy doses of antibiotics. Just long enough to get them to the slaughterhouse.

If you actually knew anything about producing cattle you would know that nobody feeds them significant amounts of corn for any amount of time. It's simply too expensive. Cattle spend the majority of their short lives eating hay, alfalfa, or other roughage. The small amounts of corn that supplement their diet before they go to the feed lot is not enough to harm them even if it was actually toxic. It's no more toxic to them than it is to you. In fact, feeding them too much corn negatively impacts their growt

This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

Business are very good at meeting consumer demands and what consumers want is the cheapest piece of meat you can possibly get. There is plenty of meat raised antibiotic-free available for sale and if the majority of consumers chose to buy that instead of the cheapest cut than you would see business quickly changing their practices to fill consumer demand.

The root of the problem is the "modern" use of mono-species CAFOs [wikipedia.org] instead of the more traditional methods of multi-species pastured livestock. Honestly, even if you set out to intentionally breed drug resistant microbes, you really couldn't devise a much better scheme for it than a CAFO. This is doubly sad because CAFOs are far less efficient in terms of fossil fuel inputs, and use just as much land anyway (if you include all the land used to grow the feed grain, etc.).

It's not about profit, it's about management and investor laziness. Businesses tend to maximize the profit : effort ratio rather than profit itself.

Polyculture farms have greater profit margins than industrial monocultures but require a higher degree of planning, coordination and labor. It's easy to see why: similar or enhanced productivity plus reduced or eliminated spending on inputs equals greater profitability. Savings on inputs can also be directly reinvested towards water and labor, increasing product

The fact the claim of over-indulgence in pre-emptive antibiotics use in cattle is a cause of resistant bacteria strains affecting humans is under-reported in the mainstream US media does not mean it is not supported by reputable scientific studies.

This has nothing to do with pro EU or anti-US but everything with pro-shady business or anti-consumer.

No, the transfer of antibiotic resistant bacteria from livestock hosts to humans is in fact poorly demonstrated. Most scientists and other humans think it should be true, and so fairly vehemently defend the claim. They are probably right, but the science is weak.

But then you'd have to explain how the drug-resistant bacteria appeared on the hospitals, if it's not due to overuse of drugs. If it is due drugs, then you'd have to explain why it does not apply to factory farms with conditions akin to hospitals.

farm workers aren't the only people that spend more time in hospitals as opposed to other individuals (such as doctors, nurses, etc.). If your hypothesis would be true, farm workers wouldn't be the only group of people with a statistically significant higher percentage of carrying the antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, since it does appear to be only farmers it has to be something that they do that is specific to *only* farmers, which is not that they are present in hospitals more since there are other

If factory farms are more dangerous perhaps its due to the less than ideal living conditions the animals are living in. Overcrowding less than desired sanitary living conditions tend to favour disease in all animals including us.

I'm sure that can be backed up by someone with more of an inclination to provide citations. What would happen to the american economy if food prices were to substantially rise by 50 , 100% or more?

It seems from this side of the atlantic that there is a concerted effort by the FDA

I think perhaps you have misunderstood the intention of my reply. It was directed at the post to which it replied, mostly when the guy said:

Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you. --Pseudonym Authority

Maybe he was lambasting someone that actually is ignorant, but the argument that he used was wrong and is wrong. Science is not about telling people that they are stupid and to listen to an expert. Scientific thought is about asking annoying questions, and finding answers through observation of physical phenomena.

That said, let me explain it to you: bacteria wants to live. Bacteria will evolve to survive in places where it is not welcome. The bacteria are simple organisms, and don't like to waste space in their DNA on stupid shit just for fun. The presence of vaccines in places that they want to live is usually a problem, but they adapt to it. If the vaccines were not there, there would be no evolutionary pressure to evade the vaccines. Understand? Or do I need to break out the image macros, as stupid memes like `curolation =! causashon' is probably a better learning tool for you.

I think you need to prove causation in order to claim that what the FDA is doing is wrong and what European regulatory agencies are doing is right. Right now, we have a declaration by the OP of their opinion to that effect, with no supporting evidence.

I am not arguing that overuse of antibiotics in an organism does not result in drug resistant strains within that organism. However, it is a leap of faith to attribute an increase in drug resistant bacteria within a human population which:

Contrary to what it say above, antibiotics are not completely banned in Europe for preemptive use in farm animal production. However, there is a list of approved antibiotics for such uses, and relevance of the antibiotics for human medicine is a factor in the rules.

I can say most healthcare professionals carry MRSA. Not that MRSA is any more virulent that regular staph, it's only more resistant to some antibiotics. You just need Vanc or some some newer antibiotic to treat it. Many contagions will not harm an otherwise healthy individual.

The real drug-resistant bacterial threat is from TDR (totally drug-resistant) Tuberculosis. Two billion people (as in, 2 out of 7 people wordwide) have TB, and TDR TB has been reported [wikipedia.org] in at least India, Iran and Italy. Presumably Indiana is next.

Engage in practices which are proven to eventually cause a trillion dollar worldwide public health crisis

Same practices make you marginally more money.. enough for another yacht for you and 100k a year preschool for each of your lobbyists' children , a bunch of plus 40k a month alimony payments all around...

No missing step!

Profit !

The FDA is cock sucking bitch boy of corporate interest. This is what happens when you vote in people who hate government- they stock the government with people determined to unde